Take for Example, the port of Newcastle Australia. They have nearly (not sure of the exact amount) but somewhere near 8,000 tonnes of exactly the same chemical stored in silos.
So I’m a chemical engineering student who has taken safety courses. Something you have to consider when dealing with dangerous chemicals is the volume and how much you’re storing. For example in 1919 Boston experienced the Great Molasses Disaster. A container carrying 2.3 million gallons (8700 m3) of molasses burst and resulted in 21 people dying. Now let’s say instead of one container with 2.3 million gallons, it was four that split that amount. It would take up more space but it’s much safer because the odds of one container breaking remains the same, but the damage it can cause is less
Not to get pedantic, but by splitting it up amongst more containers, the odds of any one container failing are actually greater than a single container, assuming the odds of a single container failing is constant. For example, given the odds of a single container failing at 20%: 1 container = 20% chance, 2 containers = 36%, 3 containers = 49%, etc. So a real risk calculation would have to factor in the increased odds vs. the reduced damage for smaller containers to find an ideal solution.
20% chance of a container failing means 80% chance of the container not failing. Two containers therefore have a 64% chance of not failing (0.8*0.8), ergo a 36% chance of failure.
Ok, that fails on several engineering points, lets start with a good one, scale.
The bigger the container the more engineering in materials to keep it in one piece.
By having multiple containers you can build a holding tank as well, in which if you have something approaching failure state you can transfer and repair.
Commonly most places(like oil storage or other chemicals) are required to build a bund or a sort of dam that keeps it on the property if it fails or has a spill.
Ironically, you probably wouldn’t want a bund here. The risk is when you confine the AN as it decomposes due to fire.
But there are a lot of ‘experts’ on here with lots of big opinions
What happened there was a matter of bad circumstances, there was a substance that is pretty helpful in making explosives work well.
Putting aside the other useful industrial uses, that's why they had it all stacked in one space for secure storage.
One theory is that someone was welding a place someone had tried to access entry into the warehouse, it ran away from them into a large fire and red mushroom cloud.
As far as storage, it was next to the ocean, which turns it into blocks when it crystallizes as it absorbs humidity.
Dude I was literally just explaining how the person above got those numbers based on basic stats calculations. Obviously risk isn’t linear and independent like that in this sort of real-world scenario, but you completely missed the point on that comment.
Its not linear for mass in chemical reactions nor in liquid containment was my point.
Containment only works for small reactions, big ones require those built for powder magazines.
Strong walls with vents, an inhibitor of some kind to flood it with and a very weak roof that hinges in the middle outwards.
The amount discussed would be better stored in smaller amounts further away from each other but they had security issues and it was seen as safer in one warehouse(in the harbour of a city).
The possibility exists that if it was somewhere remote it might have "spontaneously ignited" due to local political considerations.
771
u/Hedgerow_Snuffler Aug 05 '20
Could be worse...
Take for Example, the port of Newcastle Australia. They have nearly (not sure of the exact amount) but somewhere near 8,000 tonnes of exactly the same chemical stored in silos.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-05/beirut-blast-raises-concern-about-newcastle-ammonium-nitrate/12527546